The Military Tribunal judges hearing the Doctors Trial in Nuremberg Germany after WWII. From left to right are Harold L. Sebring, Walter B. Beals, Johnson T. Crawford, and Victor C. Swearingen. Twenty of the 23 defendants were medical doctors, and were accused of having been involved in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder, violating basic human rights of informed medical consent. Of the 23 defendants, seven were acquitted and seven received death sentences; the remainder received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. Image source.

by Jefferey Jaxen Health Impact News

The American Medical Association outlines the ideal of informed consent under Opinion 8.08 stating:

The patient’s right of self-decision can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an informed choice.

The opinion also states that:

The physician’s obligation is to present the medical facts accurately to the patient…

Presently in the U.S. and many other countries, healthcare has all but lost the ideal of informed consent. The principle has been willfully cast away by government and medical officials in favor of corruption, fraud and conflict of interest.

At the individual health practitioner level, informed consent has fallen victim to expediency, apathy and a dulling of humanity and consciousness. However, in Oklahoma a historical spike on the scale has just signified that humanity has not left behind these dark days of medicine yet.

Mainstream Media Not Standing up for Patient Rights

The headlines came and went as local media attempted to gloss over the loss of an insulating barrier that once protected patients. Bill 3016 — called the Parental Rights Immunization Act —would have required healthcare providers to get informed consent from parents or guardians before administering a vaccine. In addition, the bill would legally require the healthcare provider to “provide relevant information regarding benefits and risks of the vaccine as well as information concerning the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” Finally, the bill would require healthcare providers to make available for review the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: Vaccine Excipient and Media Summary” (also known as the “Pink Book,” Appendix B) Program.

The practice of mainstream medicine is changing rapidly as it wrestles to keep what little integrity it has left from pharmaceutical influence. HB 3016 would have provided a stopgap measure to the runaway encroachment upon health freedom and informed consent currently taking place in the U.S.

The mainstream media has been of little help offering no fair coverage of the bill or its recent demise. Only a few local Oklahoma outlets produced stale pieces devoid of truth outside the small frame placed around the story to steer reader’s opinions.

Are Politicians Being Influenced by Pharmaceutical Influences or Just Ignorant on Health Freedom Rights?

Assuming Fallin’s decision to veto the bill didn’t spawn from the billion’s in lobbying done yearly from pharmaceutical companies, her attached comments show a disconnect with the people she is representing.

Attached to her veto statement, Fallin added that she “strongly supports requiring healthcare professionals to provide consumers with the VIS and information regarding the NVICP prior to obtaining informed consent for a vaccination, as is already required by federal law.”

Interestingly enough, all the people who supported the now vetoed HB 3016 also supported such acts by healthcare professionals required by law.

Assuming Fallin’s leadership and judgement isn’t in the pocket of drug company interests, a quick discussion with the bill’s sponsors or community supporting the bill would find that the steps “required by federal law” are not always being followed. What has filled the void in the absence of proper informed consent is widespread vaccine injury going unreported.

Using math similar to the bogus unemployment figures in the U.S., vaccine injury totals are manageable because doctors and patients aren’t reporting them accurately. So we have a circular argument in which parents aren’t given proper informed consent and health providers are not properly reporting vaccine injury. When the people fight to introduce a bill to make sure the proper information is given at each healthcare visit, the governor vetoes the bill because she “strongly supports” proper informed consent be given to parents.

Fallin’s magical thinking goes beyond her state’s borders. The bill and her veto represent a failed opportunity to begin to restore the U.S. healthcare system’s integrity.

Safety Studies on CDC Vaccine Schedule Lacking

There are no studies showing the safety of multiple vaccines given to children. There have been no studies for safety covering the CDC’s current recommended schedule. The majority of vaccine inserts — those things that Fallin vetoed the idea of patients obtaining — state that there have been no safety studies in pregnant women, in young children or for overall mutagenic and carcinogenic properties of the vaccine(s).

Most doctors are not trained to spot vaccine injuries and fewer parents understand what to watch for in their children. There is no post-market safety surveillance for vaccines and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is passive, voluntary and abusively broken.

For inhuman, criminal vaccine manufacturers, there is zero incentive to change the current system because drug companies are not liable for faulty products or the damage they cause. Even with cooked numbers reported from VAERS showing less than accurate — though still alarmingly unsafe — totals, those officials parroting the CDC’s vaccine talking points of safe and effective are beginning to look instantly ridiculous.

Politicians Believe They Know Better than Parents What is Right for Their Children

The press has made it clear they will give no quarter to health freedom and informed consent in the U.S. Dangerous quotes, rhetoric and reasoning supporting Fallin’s veto were given the lion’s share of attention to frame this event.

most likely would discourage it [vaccination] by scaring parents with a list of all possible ingredients, including many words they would not comprehend.

Perhaps it isn’t the act of giving information to parents that would scare them or produce fear, maybe it is the information itself.

Dr. Don Wilber, president of the Oklahoma County Medical Society stated:

this requirement [HB 3016] would only serve to burden physicians and give unnecessary fear to parents.

Dr. Wilber and Yen would benefit from reading the first sentence of this article quoting the AMA’s definition of informed consent. The outcome of giving informed consent is not the concern or place of a physician’s opinion or control.

Using one’s assumed reaction to giving them informed consent before a medical procedure as grounds to deny them this long-held pillar of medicine is unethical. Certainly if the healthcare provider and politician truly believe that the information surrounding the medical procedure [immunization] is fearful or scary, then more information needs to be disseminated to further a discussion around it.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.